Far Cry 2 Multiplayer Discussion

Share.

Alex and Martin checked out Far Cry 2's multiplayer and lived to tell the tale.

By Alex Simmons and Martin Robinson

Alex: So, Far Cry 2's multiplayer. It's is an odd one because the single-player game is so unique -- the open-world gameplay works a treat in the campaign game but how do you feel it translated to multiplayer?

Martin: Having spent a good few hours with the campaign, it was a bit jarring to see it in multiplayer. As you said, the single player is unique -- it's got an atmosphere and various mechanics that mean as a game it's got more in common with something like BioShock than Call of Duty or Halo. The emphasis is on narrative -- and one that looks quite daring for a videogame -- so it's transition to multiplayer could be rocky.

Alex: Totally. To me it felt like a tacked-on addition rather than an extension of the single-player game. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just not in keeping with what I associate Far Cry with.

Martin: It had the expansive environments. What else do you associate Far Cry with?

Alex: Sure, it had some expansive environments, but most of the stuff we played through was set in compact, built-up areas like shanty towns rather than vast, open vistas. The best levels were certainly the largest levels, where you could use hang gliders to drift from one level of the map to the next or vehicles to quickly zip across the map. That was when the multiplayer game really came into its own.

Martin: We've started off on a fairly negative note -- Far Cry 2's multiplayer does have a number of factors in its favour and the vehicles are certainly one of the best factors...

Alex: Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed playing it, I was just expecting something... different. I was expecting more big open levels, or for some of the smaller levels to have that elements of freedom rather than playing out like a straight shoot out. Having said that, it does what it does pretty solidly, which is what most people what from a multiplayer game. Besides, straying from the tried and tested formula of deathmatch, and the like more often than not doesn't work. I mean, look at Kane & Lynch...

Martin: I never really played Kane & Lynch online...

Alex: It was a nice idea. You had to work as a team to rob banks and such, but ultimately you had to make a decision -- do you get greedy and try to take the lion's share of the cash by stabbing your team mates in the back, or work with them to improve your chances of survival but split the swag more ways.

Martin: Sounds neat.

Alex: It was, but it wasn't obvious enough. People just didn't get it.

Martin: Far Cry 2's multiplayer is very much by the numbers.

Alex: To me, a multiplayer game needs to be accessible above everything else. Players need to understand what you have to do the moment you're dropped in the game and that wasn't the case with Kane & Lynch. With Far Cry 2, however, you know exactly what you have to do -- shoot the enemy!

Martin. I just want to shoot people! All too often I spend time playing multiplayer games in a state of confusion, while a PR tells me the convoluted rules: "You've got to run around the base twice, then back a jeep up into this bit here then steal the diamonds." Just keep it simple, that's what I say.

Alex: Shooting people is certainly one thing that Far Cry does well, especially when you start unlocking some of the bigger weapons. I played mainly as the commando, who has a grenade launcher as a secondary weapon, which you unlock by collecting diamonds.

Martin: We should explain -- the game's got a class system and the weapons are all upgradeable by collecting diamonds.

Alex: So there are six player types -- commando, sharpshooter, guerrilla, rebel, gunner and saboteur -- and each has three levels of upgrades, which you activate using diamonds that are rewards for skilful play rather than the usual 'you got the most kills'.

Martin: It's a nice idea but I worry how it will balance out for newcomers, or people like me who just aren't very good.

Alex: I liked the diamond system and I thought it worked well. Better still, even if you haven't earned a diamond I still think it was a fairly level playing field, without the weapon upgrades. The weapons weren't so outrageously powerful that one player dominated.

Martin: You're right, I never felt truly underpowered.

Alex: And that's what I thought worked well -- you're rewarded for putting the effort in and playing the game well, but never so much that you'll automatically crush the enemy if you've unlocked all the upgrades.

Martin: Right. Another aspect that marked the game out was being able to revive team mates. It opened up some quite dark strategies -- at one point I sniped someone from the opposing team and as their teammates went to revive them I picked them off one by one!

Alex: You're evil. But it's a nice touch made even better because it's not enforced -- if you can't be arsed to wait to be revived you can simply just cark it and speed up the respawn. Again, you're rewarded if you do revive because you earn points that can lead to diamonds, plus it's possible to maintain a constant attack if you have one guy running round the frontlines reviving people.

Martin: A good feature, but a shame everyone we played with was so bloody selfish and didn't help each other out!

Alex: Too true, but again that's probably down to people not knowing how to do it or how to make the most of it. Indeed, I thought the health system overall was great. Like, if you take a nasty shot or are set on fire, you have to properly patch yourself up -- which leaves you open to attack for a few seconds -- to continue.